There is currently some negative talk about Scarlett Johansson accepting the role of a trans man in a new movie. Trans activists are upset at this because, according to them, a trans role should only be played by a trans actor.

While I respect their opinions, I must disagree with them.

If, in fact, trans roles should only be played by trans actors, then Indiana Jones should only have been played by a real archaeologist, Peter Parker should only have been played by a real teenager bitten by a real radioactive spider and the role of Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner’s Daughter should only have been played by the real Loretta Lynn. Linda Hunt should return the Oscar she was awarded for playing a man in The Year of Living Dangerously, because there were plenty of real men available for the role. Christoph Waltz should return the Oscar he was awarded for playing a Nazi in Inglorious Basterds, because there were plenty of real Nazis available for the role. And so on.

These activists must not fully understand three basic things about the movie business:

The whole point of acting is pretending to be someone you are not.

A star like Scarlett Johansson can green-light a major motion picture. A relatively unknown trans actor cannot.

Motion Picture studios are in the business of making money, not shining a light on social injustice.

I see Tim Allen is still whining about his show Last Man Standing being cancelled because of his conservative political beliefs.

I don’t work in the television industry but I know that politics is not the key factor in a show being renewed or cancelled. Networks must be profitable if they are to exist. If a show isn’t profitable, it gets cancelled, no matter what the political affiliation of its star.

I don’t have knowledge of the profit/loss statement for your show, but I bet if it were profitable, it would have been renewed by ABC or picked up by another network, cable station or streaming service.

There’s a lot of talk nowadays about freedom of speech and the NFL and people who protest. It seems to me that there’s a simple solution to this problem.
Here’s the first amendment to the US Constitution:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
By adding just four words, we can clarify what is apparently a confusing statement:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech — except at sporting events— or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
All we have to do is change the Constitution, which is probably a relatively easy thing to do.
You’re welcome.